Jaya 2012

February 4, 2013 16:21 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250016
Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami

Vol. 6, No. 4 (2012) 1250016 (19 pages)
c World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S1793431112500169
MODULUS REDUCTION AND DAMPING CURVES

FOR SAND OF SOUTH-EAST COAST OF INDIA
V. JAYA
Department of Civil Engineering
College of Engineering Trivandrum
J. Earthquake and Tsunami 2012.06. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Kerala-695 016
jayasraj@gmail.com
by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 12/25/14. For personal use only.
G. R. DODAGOUDAR∗ and A. BOOMINATHAN†

Department of Civil Engineering
I.I.T. Madras, Chennai-600 036
∗goudar@iitm.ac.in
†boomi@iitm.ac.in
Received 3 March 2011

Accepted 20 April 2011
Published 27 August 2012
Adequate information on dynamic soil properties, especially strain dependent shear mod-
ulus (G) and damping ratio (ξ) for each soil layer are the essential input data for seismic
ground response analysis and soil-structure interaction studies. In the present study, the
shear modulus and damping ratio of sand are estimated for a wide range of strains based
on undrained strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests. The bender elements are also utilized
in the cyclic triaxial test to estimate the low strain shear modulus. For this purpose, the
soil samples are taken from a nuclear power plant site located at the south-east coastal
region of India. Based on the experimental results, an empirical expression is developed
to calculate the maximum shear modulus, Gmax as function of void ratio and effective
confining stress. Predictive relationships are also developed for estimating normalized
shear modulus and damping ratio curves for the sand. The predictive relationships are
based on the hyperbolic model and cyclic triaxial test results. The developed modulus
reduction and damping ratio curves from the predictive relationships are compared with
the previously available curves in the literature.
Keywords: Shear modulus; damping ratio; strain–controlled cyclic triaxial tests; bender
elements; modulus reduction curve.
1. Introduction
In the east coast region of India, a number of critical facilities such as Port and
Harbour structures, Petrochemical refinery complexes and nuclear facilities includ-
ing Nuclear power plants are located. Major expansion works in the above project
sites and new larger projects are also being proposed in this region. After 2001
Bhuj and 2004 Sumatra earthquakes, it is felt necessary to establish ground
motion parameters considering local site effects. In the coastal region, the sites
are mostly covered by sandy deposits, thickness of which can vary about 50 m. The
1250016-1
V. Jaya, G. R. Dodagoudar & A. Boominathan
groundwater table is practically very close to the ground surface. These deposits
may amplify and/or liquefy during earthquakes. Although the ground response
analysis can be carried out using standard modulus reduction and damping curves,
it is preferable to use site-specific modulus reduction and damping curves based
on the in situ/ laboratory tests. Hence, it is important to evaluate site-specific
modulus reduction and damping curves which must be utilized for carrying out
ground response analysis and seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction studies
at various projects for safe design of different structures in this region.
The standard practice in seismic analysis and design of structures is to take into
consideration the nonlinear behavior of soils undergoing time-varying deformations
caused by earthquakes. The nonlinear stress–strain behavior of cyclically loaded
soils is complex, and geotechnical engineers are challenged by the need to charac-
terize this behavior with accurate and simple models. The nonlinear stress–strain
behavior of the soil is expressed in terms of the secant shear modulus (G) and the
damping (ξ). A typical soil subjected to symmetric cyclic loading might exhibit a
hysteresis loop of the type as depicted in Fig. 1. With reference to the hysteresis
loop, the secant shear modulus is usually defined as the ratio between maximum
shear stress and maximum shear strain, while the damping ratio is proportional to
the area enclosed by the hysteresis loop, and corresponds to the energy dissipated
in one cycle of motion. It is apparent that each of the aforementioned properties
depends on the magnitude of the strain for which the hysteresis loop is determined;
thus they are functions of the cyclic shear strain amplitude.
Soil parameters required for nonlinear models include the soil profile definition
and parameters for constitutive soil model. The parameters required for the consti-
tutive soil model generally consist of backbone curve that models the stress–strain
path during cyclic loading and rules for loading and unloading, stiffness degrada-
tion and other factors [Kramer, 1996]. The different types of mathematical functions
Fig. 1. Hysteretic stress–strain loop for cyclic loading.
1250016-2
Modulus Reduction and Damping Curves for Sand of South-East Coast of India
used to describe the backbone curve are the bilinear model, the multilinear model,
the hyperbolic model [Matasovic and Vucetic, 1993] and Ramberg–Osgood model
[Richard and Abott, 1973; Lee and Sheu, 2007].
Nonlinear hysterestic soil behavior is approximated by equivalent linear analysis,
where soil constitutive behavior is defined by the following three parameters: the
maximum shear modulus (Gmax ), the modulus reduction, and the damping ratio
curves [Seed and Idriss, 1970]. At small-strain, shear-wave velocity (Vs ) is directly
related to Gmax . At moderate to high strains, the secant shear modulus is used to
represent the average soil stiffness. The variation of the modulus ratio (G/Gmax )
with the shear strain is described graphically by modulus reduction curve. The most
important factors that affect modulus reduction and damping include mean effective
confining stress (σ0 ), plasticity index (PI) and soil type [Hardin and Drnevich, 1972;
Vucetic and Dobry, 1991]. The modulus reduction and damping behavior of low
plasticity soils is more dependent on the mean effective confining stress [Kokusho,
1980; Ishibashi and Zhang, 1993; Stokoe et al., 1999]. The modulus reduction and
damping are related to the frictional behavior at the interparticle contacts and the
rearrangement of the grains during cyclic loading [Dobry et al., 1982]. The variation
of shear modulus and material damping with strain is an important characteristic
of the soil strata as it describes its nonlinear behavior under dynamic loading. This
characteristic has a great influence on seismic soil-structure interaction response of
buildings and indicates whether the seismic motion will be amplified by the soil
strata or attenuated.
Cyclic triaxial tests are widely used to evaluate shear modulus and damping
ratio at medium and high strain levels for various types of soils [Kokusho, 1980;
Vucetic and Dobry, 1991]. Both stress-controlled and strain-controlled cyclic tri-
axial tests have been carried out for the evaluation of dynamic properties. The
strain-controlled tests will give more realistic measurement of the pore pressure.
During earthquake loading, pore pressure generation in saturated sand is more
closely related to strain amplitude than stress amplitude. Although it is ideal to
perform cyclic tests using undisturbed soil samples, it is not cost — effective to
recover high quality undisturbed sand samples for the laboratory tests. Therefore,
the most common practice is to obtain strain dependent modulus and damping by
conducting strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests on reconstituted sand specimens.
The Gmax of soils in the laboratory is normally obtained from the resonant
column tests [Hardin and Richart, 1963; Iwasaki et al., 1978], torsional shear tests
[Iwasaki and Tatsuoka, 1978] and bender element tests. The bender element test
was originally developed by Shirley and Hampton [1978] to obtain the Gmax of a
soil by measuring the velocity of shear wave propagating through the sample. The
bender element test results are compared with resonant column test results and
found good agreement between Gmax values from both the tests [De Alba et al.,
1984; Dyvik and Madshus, 1985; Thomann and Hryciw, 1990; Blewett et al., 2000;
Zhou and Chen, 2005]. The bender element test is much cheaper and easier than
the resonant column test [Viggani and Atkinson, 1995; Jaya et al., 2007].
1250016-3
In this study, for the development of modulus reduction and damping ratio
curves, sand samples are collected from a nuclear power plant site located at south-
east coast of India. Strain-controlled undrained cyclic triaxial tests are conducted
on saturated sand to evaluate the shear modulus and damping at medium and
high strain levels. The estimation of shear modulus at very low strain level is made
based on shear wave velocity measurements by using piezoelectric bender elements.
Based on the experimental results, the modulus reduction and damping ratio curves
are developed for the sand at different confining stresses. The developed modulus
reduction and damping ratio curves can be used straightway for carrying out free
field ground response analysis of various project sites located in the south-east coast
of India.
2. Laboratory Investigation
The experimental studies are conducted using Wykeham Farrance International,
UK make, servo-controlled cyclic triaxial testing facility available in the Department
of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai (India) as
shown in Fig. 2. The equipment is completely automated and computerized. It
consists of a servo-controlled pneumatic actuator having a capacity of ±25 kN and
frequency range up to 70 Hz. The load frame is attached to a submersible load cell of
capacity ±5 kN. The triaxial cell has the facility to conduct the tests on soil samples
of sizes 50 mm, 70 mm and 100 mm diameters with confining stresses up to 1,000 kPa
using the pneumatic control panel. Both stress-controlled and strain-controlled tests
can be performed using built-in sine, triangular and square waveforms or any other
desired loading waveform including earthquake excitations by means of external
input. The axial deformation, lateral deformation, volume change, cell pressure,
cyclic load and sample pore water pressure can be monitored using a dedicated
data acquisition system.
Fig. 2. Cyclic triaxial apparatus.
1250016-4
Fig. 3. Bender elements mounted on cyclic triaxial apparatus.
In addition to the cyclic triaxial tests, bender element tests are also performed
on the reconstituted soil samples under different confining stresses. For reliable esti-
mates of Gmax , piezoelectric bender elements are mounted on the top and bottom
platens of the cyclic triaxial cell as shown in Fig. 3 and bender elements pene-
trate about 3 mm into the sample. The bender elements are piezoelectric cantilever
shaped transducers for generating and detecting shear wave motions through the
soil medium. In the bender element test, for the measurement of shear wave veloc-
ity, a pair of bender elements is used whereby one of the bender elements acts
as the shear wave transmitter and the other bender element acts as the receiver.
The function generator generates an input signal with user defined amplitude and
frequency. An oscilloscope is used for recording data from the bender elements.
The data of the input and output signals from the oscilloscope are displayed and
recorded on computer by using the software. The travel time of the shear wave from
the transmitter to the receiver is determined from the wave trace displayed by the
software that allows the user to quickly and easily calculate the shear wave velocity.
2.1. Sample preparation and test procedure

The soil samples used in the present study are taken from a nuclear power project
site located at 60 km from south of Chennai city (India). A typical grain size dis-
tribution of the soil used in the study is shown in Fig. 4. The physical properties of
the soil are determined by conducting the laboratory tests and are summarized in
Table 1. The samples are characterized as uniformly graded sand (SP) as per the
Indian Soil Classification System (IS: 1498–1970).
The cylindrical soil specimens of 70 mm diameter and 140 mm length are used.
Tests are carried out on reconstituted sand samples prepared at a particular relative
density by air pluviation technique. After assembling and filling the triaxial chamber
with water, de-aired water is allowed slowly to seep through the specimen from the
1250016-5
100
80
Percentage finer (%)
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain size (mm)
Fig. 4. Grain size distribution of sand.
Table 1. Properties of sand.
Property Value
Specific gravity, Gs 2.68
Maximum dry density (kg/m3 ) 1720
Minimum dry density (kg/m3 ) 1510
Maximum void ratio, emax 0.78
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.56
D10 (mm) 0.17
D60 (mm) 0.40
Cu 2.35
Cc 0.92
Nonplastic fines Less than 5%
bottom. Back pressure is applied to the specimen in steps and evaluation of the
degree of saturation is done at appropriate intervals by measuring Skempton’s pore
water pressure parameter B and a value of more than 0.96 is ensured. Following the
saturation, the sand specimens are consolidated to the required effective isotropic
stresses. The consolidated volume and height of the specimen are obtained using
the software through the data acquisition system. Then the specimens are subjected
to a cyclic deviator stress in axial direction.
The laboratory investigation programme consisted of two sets of tests. The first
set of experiments is composed of bender element tests, at low strain levels that
are used for the estimation of Gmax . The bender element tests are carried out on
the reconstituted sand specimens prepared at relative densities varying from 20%
to 85%. After saturation the specimens are consolidated under effective confining
1250016-6
stresses varying from 20 kPa to 200 kPa. In the second set of experiments, the
strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests are carried out on the reconstituted sand spec-
imens prepared at relative densities of 65% and 85% with effective confining stresses
varying from 100 kPa to 200 kPa according to ASTM D3999-91 [2003]. All the spec-
imens are subjected to a cyclic sinusoidal deformation having a frequency of 1 Hz.
3. Results and Discussion

In order to develop modulus reduction and damping ratio curves, a comprehensive
experimental programme has been conducted as outlined in the previous section.
Results and discussion of the experimental study are given under two heads: Bender
element tests and Cyclic triaxial tests.

3.1. Bender element tests

The travel time of shear wave between two points in a specimen may be taken
as the time between the first direct arrival of shear wave at each point [Viggiani
and Atkinson, 1995; Leong et al., 2005]. To reduce the degree of subjectivity in
the interpretation of travel time, the parameters of the sinusoidal input signal —
the frequency and the amplitude (Vpp ) are selected according to the performance
criteria suggested by Leong et al. [2005]. A sine pulse with amplitude of 20 Vpp is
selected as the transmitter signal. The selected exciting frequency is 10 kHz and
signal to noise ratio for the receiver signal is 4 dB. Figure 5 shows the typical input
and output waveform traces obtained from the bender element tests. The first major
reversal point B at the output waveform is considered as the first arrival of the shear
wave at the receiver bender element (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5. Typical input and output waveforms from bender element tests.
1250016-7
The wave traces obtained by the above procedure are used for the interpretation
of the travel time of the shear waves through the sample. The shear wave velocity
and hence the Gmax values corresponding to each effective confining stress are
estimated based on the elastic theory of wave propagation as
L
, Vs = (1)
t
where Vs = shear wave velocity, L = tip to tip distance between the bender ele-
ments, and t = travel time of shear waves through the sample.
Gmax = ρVs2 , (2)
where ρ = mass density of the soil sample.
The Gmax is estimated under saturated condition for different void ratios and
effective confining stresses. The Gmax values obtained from the bender element
tests are plotted against mean effective confining stress in Fig. 6. A general form
of the empirical expression for the Gmax suggested by Hardin and Richart [1963] is
given as
(B − e)2 n
Gmax = A (σ0 ) , (3)
1+e
where Gmax is in kPa, e = void ratio, σ0 = effective confining stress in kPa, and
(B−e)2
1+e = F (e) is known as the void ratio function. The parameters A and n are
the constants dependent on the shear strain level. The constant B depends on the
shape of the sand grains. In Fig. 7, Gmax values at the end of the consolidation have
140
130
Dr = 20 %
120
Dr = 50 %
110 Dr = 65 %
100 Dr = 85 %
Gmax (MPa)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Effective confining stress (kPa)
Fig. 6. Variation of Gmax with effective confining stress at different relative densities.
1250016-8
100
Gmax/F(e)=6.35(σ'0)05
Gmax / F(e), MPa R2 = 0.9964
Dr = 20 %
Dr = 65 %
Dr = 85 %
10
10 100 1000
Fig. 7. Relationship between Gmax /F (e) and effective confining stress.
been divided by the function F (e) and plotted against the effective confining stress
used in the test. The data points plotted on the log–log scale are related linearly
and confined in a narrow range as depicted in the figure. They can be fitted together
using the least-squares regression method, and values of the coefficients A and n
can be obtained. The constants involved in Eq. (3) are obtained by the regression
analysis of the test data and they are A = 6,350, B = 2.17 and n = 0.5.
By incorporating the constants in general Eq. (3), a predictive relation for the
small-strain shear modulus or Gmax of the saturated uniform sand is given as below:
(2.17 − e)2 0.5
(σ0 ) ,
Gmax = 6350 (4)
1+e
where Gmax is in kPa and σ0 is in kPa. As shown in Fig. 7, the correlation coefficient
for the Gmax /F (e) versus effective confining stress is relatively high indicating a well
established correlation and validating the adopted Gmax formulation.
The developed relationship for Gmax is expressed in the general form [Eq. (3)]
suggested by Hardin and Richart [1963]. The maximum shear moduli estimated
from the above relationship are compared with Gmax values obtained based on
the Hardin and Richart [1963] empirical expression (Fig. 8). It is noted from the
figure that Hardin and Richart [1963] empirical equation overestimates the Gmax
values of the tested sand. The developed empirical equation will provide practically
acceptable values of Gmax for the sands of south-east coast of India for all the
possible confining stresses.
3.2. Cyclic triaxial tests

When cyclic triaxial tests are performed on soil specimens, a hysteresis loop will be
formed in the plane of measured deviator stress and axial strain for each cycle of
1250016-9
160
140
Dr = 85 %
120
Gmax (MPa)
100
80
60 Hardin and Richart (1963)

Present Study
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Fig. 8. Comparison of Gmax values obtained using proposed predictive equation with that of
Hardin and Richart [1963].
12000
N=1
10000
8000 N = 10
Deviator Stress (kPa)
6000
4000
2000
-2000
-4000
-6000
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Axial Strain (%)
Fig. 9. Hysteresis loops of sand for different cycles of loading, N (Dr = 85%, σ0 = 200 kPa).
loading (N ). Figure 9 shows a typical stress–strain curve (hysteresis loop) obtained

by carrying out the cyclic triaxial test on the reconstituted soil specimens at a rela-
tive density of 85% for the effective confining stress of 200 kPa. The representative
values of shear modulus and damping ratio at a given shear strain amplitude are
determined from the hysteresis loop obtained at the tenth cycle of load application,
1250016-10
as suggested by Iwasaki et al. [1978] and Kokusho [1980]. The slope of the secant
line connecting the extreme points on the hysteresis loop is the Young’s modulus
(E). The shear modulus (G) is calculated using the expression:
G = E/2(1 + υ). (5)
The value of Poisson’s ratio (υ) is assumed as 0.5 for the saturated undrained
specimens. The damping ratio (ξ) is a measure of dissipated energy versus elastic
strain energy and it is computed from the area of the hysteresis loop as follows:
wd
ξ= , (6)
4πws
where wd = area enclosed by the hysteresis loop, and ws = area of the shaded
triangle as shown in Fig. 1.
The variation of shear modulus of the tested sand with the magnitude of shear
strain for different confining stresses is shown in Fig. 10. It can be easily noticed
from the figure that the shear modulus of the sand consolidated at a particular
confining stress decreases drastically with increase in shear strain. At the shear
strain range of 0.01–1%, the degradation of stiffness i.e. the reduction of shear
modulus with strain occurs rapidly and reaches one tenth of its initial value at the
strain level of 1%.
It can also be found from Fig. 10 that the shear modulus versus shear strain
curves corresponding to each confining stress shifts consistently to the right along
the shear strain axis as the confining stress becomes higher indicating the rate of
decrease of shear modulus with shear strain. This observation can be explained
60
50
Shear modulus (MPa)
40
Effective confining stress
200 kPa
30 100 kPa
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%)
Fig. 10. Shear moduli obtained from cyclic triaxial tests (Dr = 65%).
1250016-11
20
15
Damping ratio (%)
Effective confining stress

10 200 kPa
100 kPa
5
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%)
Fig. 11. Damping ratio obtained from a typical cyclic triaxial test (Dr = 65%).
by considering the dependency of shear resistance on the confining stress. The

observation made above is in concordance with the observations made by Ishibashi
and Zhang [1993] and Stokoe et al. [1999].
Figure 11 shows the variation of hysteretic damping ratio (ξ) with log γ for the
reconstituted sand samples with relative density of 65%. These results are obtained
for typical tests conducted at confining pressures of 100 and 200 kPa. It is seen from
the damping curves that the damping ratio increases with an increase in shear strain
amplitude, especially for the shear strain amplitude larger than 10−2 %. It is noted
that the damping decreases with increasing confining stress for all the values of
shear strain.
The damping curves of sand samples tested with two relative densities are shown
in Fig. 12. From the figure it is seen that they are practically similar in shapes
indicating no effect of relative density on the damping at various strain levels. The
similar conclusions are also arrived on the effect of relative density on the damping
curves of sand by Hardin and Drnevich [1972] and Tatsuoka et al. [1978] based on
the resonant column test results and torsional shear tests.
The modulus ratio (G/Gmax ) is calculated by normalizing the shear modulus
with the Gmax obtained from the bender elements for each of the confining stresses.
The effect of relative density on the modulus reduction is examined by conduct-
ing the tests with two different relative densities for different confining stresses.
Figure 13 shows the effect of relative density on the modulus reduction of soil sam-
ples consolidated at a confining stress of 200 kPa. This figure shows practically the
same shape of modulus reduction curves for samples with different relative densities
1250016-12
20
18
16
14
Damping ratio (%)
12
10
8
Dr = 85 %
6 Dr = 65 %
4
2
0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%)
Fig. 12. Variation of damping ratio with shear strain for different relative densities (σ0 =
200 kPa).
1.0
Dr = 85 %
Dr = 65 %
0.8
G/Gmax
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%)
Fig. 13. Variation of G/Gmax with shear strain at different relative densities (σ0 = 200 kPa).
due to the fact that both the G and Gmax are functions of void ratio. The similar
behavior is also observed by Kokusho [1980] for Toyoura sand.
4. Predictive Equations for Modulus Reduction

and Damping Ratio Curves
The modulus reduction and damping ratio curves are the two important input
parameters in the evaluation of nonlinear cyclic behavior of soil elements as well
1250016-13
as in the site response analysis. A variety of nonlinear models are available in the
literature in the field of cyclic behavior of soils. The simplest form of these models is
a two parameter model represented by the hyperbolic functions. In the hyperbolic
model it is assumed that any stress–strain curve of the soil is bounded by two
straight lines which are tangential to it at small strains and at large strains [Hardin
and Drnevich, 1972]. The hyperbolic models have been widely used to describe
nonlinear soil behavior under cyclic loading [Stokoe et al., 1999; Zhang et al., 2005;
Okur and Ansal, 2007].
In the present study, the nonlinear model used to fit the normalized shear mod-
ulus from laboratory experiments is a modified version of the hyperbolic model
suggested by Stokoe et al. [1999]. The following equation is used to describe the
relationship of G/Gmax and log γ for the soil specimens:

1
G/Gmax = a , (7)
γ
1+ γr
where γ = any given shear strain, γr = reference shear strain, and a = a dimen-
sionless exponent.
The two curve-fitting parameters are the reference strain, γr and the exponent
“a”. The advantage of this equation is that its form is simple and improved fits to
the test data can be obtained by adjusting the curve fitting parameter “‘a” involved
in the above equation. The value of the parameter “a” depends on the soil type.
In the present study, using the test results the best fit is obtained for the value of
curve fitting parameter “a” equal to one.
The reference strain, γr is defined as the value of shear strain where G/Gmax
equals 0.5. This definition of γr is different from the one proposed by Hardin and
Drnevich [1972]. The value of γr is, however, very convenient because it can be deter-
mined directly from the laboratory measurements. The reference strain increases
with mean effective confining stress as observed from the test results of modu-
lus reduction. Functionally, the γr can be defined as a function of mean effective
confining stress as suggested by Stokoe et al. [1995] and the same is used in this
study:
γr = γr1 (σo /pa )k , (8)
where γr1 = reference strain at a mean effective confining stress of 100 kPa and k
is a stress correction exponent. The value of k is determined as 0.42 by performing
regression analysis on the cyclic triaxial test data for different confining stresses.
Figure 14 shows the hyperbolic best fit and experimental modulus reduction for the
confining stress of 100 kPa.
It is easy to express the variation of damping ratio with cyclic shear strain
amplitude as a function of normalized shear modulus, which is less susceptible to
possible errors. Hence, Aggour and Zhang [2006] suggested the following expression
1250016-14
1.0
Hyperbolic Best Fit

Experimental Data (100 kPa)
0.8
0.6
G/Gmax
0.4
0.2
0.0
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain(%)
Fig. 14. Hyperbolic best fit and experimental data for modulus reduction curve.
for the evaluation of damping ratio as a function of G/Gmax :
ξ(%) = Ae−c(G/Gmax ) ,
d
(9)
where A, c and d are the regression constants (coefficients).

Based on the cyclic triaxial test results obtained from this study, it is possible
to establish the following relationship by simple regression analysis:
1.2
ξ(%) = 20e−3(G/Gmax) . (10)
As shown in Fig. 15, the established relationship adequately fits the experimental
data in which the effective confining stress was 100 kPa. Figure 15 is based on the
average value of damping ratio obtained from more than 10 tests which yielded
smooth hysteretic loop. At very small strain levels, the value of damping ratio is
approximately equal to 1% and at very large strain levels the maximum predicted
value of ξ is around 20%. Hence, the proposed Eq. (10) appears to be adequate to
define the strain dependent damping behavior of sand samples considered in the
present study.
Figures 16 and 17 show the normalized shear modulus reduction and damping
curves for different confining stresses obtained from the developed predictive equa-
tions [Eqs. (7) and (10)]. The modulus reduction and damping curves proposed for
sands by Seed et al. [1986] are also shown in the figures. It can be seen from Fig. 16
that the modulus reduction curve for the confining stress of 400 kPa follows the Seed
1250016-15
20
Damping ratio (%)
15
10
5 Best Fit Curve

Experimental Data
0
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%)
Fig. 15. Best fit damping ratio curve with experimental data.
1.0
0.8
Present Study
50 kPa
G/Gmax
0.6
100 kPa
400 kPa
Seed et al. (1986)
0.4 Lower Bound
Mean
Upper Bound
0.2
0.0
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1
Shear strain (%)
Fig. 16. Comparison of developed modulus reduction curves with curves proposed by Seed et al.
[1986].
et al. [1986] upper bound curve, while the curve for the 100 kPa follows the mean
curve of Seed et al. As shown in Fig. 17, the damping ratio curve for the confining
stress of 100 kPa lies between the Seed et al. [1986] mean and lower bound curves.
Similar observations are made by Zhang et al. [2005] for soils having different age
groups and PI = 0. It is noted from the figures that both the modulus reduction
and damping curves shift to the right with the increase in mean effective confining
stress. It can be observed from Fig. 16 that the initial portions of the modulus
1250016-16
20 Present Study
50 kPa
100 kPa
400 kPa
16
Seed et al. (1986)
Damping ratio (%)
Upper Bound
Mean
12 Lower Bound
8
4
0
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1
Shear strain (%)
Fig. 17. Comparison of developed damping ratio curves with curves proposed by Seed et al.
[1986].
reduction curves tend to be more flatter with an increase of the effective confining
stress indicating the linear behavior of sand at high confining stress for wide range
of strains. But the shape of the damping curves corresponding to the high confining
stress as shown in Fig. 17 indicates the presence of low hysteretic damping at low
to medium strain levels.
The developed curves take into account the effect of confining stress on modulus
reduction and damping ratio and permit proper consideration of the nonlinear
characteristics of the sand layers with depth. These curves indicate that, when
the effect of confining stress is taken into account more appropriately, the degree
of nonlinearity of the soil decreases with depth. This information has to be taken
into account in the site-specific ground response analysis.
5. Conclusions
The strain-controlled cyclic triaxial and bender elements tests are carried out on
the reconstituted sand samples collected from the south-east coast of India to eval-
uate the Gmax and to establish confining stress dependent modulus reduction and
damping ratio curves.
Based on the bender element tests carried out on the reconstituted sand sam-
ples, the predictive equation is proposed for the estimation of Gmax of sand under
different confining stress levels. The estimated Gmax is found to be about 20% less
compared to that obtained from the empirical equation proposed by Hardin and
Richart [1963].
1250016-17
Shear moduli obtained from the cyclic triaxial tests at different shear strain
amplitudes show that increase in confining stress results in lesser shear modulus
degradation at a given cyclic shear strain. The damping decreases with increase in
confining stress at a particular value of shear strain. It is found that the significant
reduction in shear modulus and increase in damping occur over shear strains in the
range of 0.02 to 4%.
A nonlinear model for the modulus reduction behavior of the sand is proposed
based on the modified hyperbolic model of Stokoe et al. [1999]. The curve fitting
parameters involved in the modified hyperbolic model are evaluated based on the
values of shear modulus and damping ratio measured using the cyclic triaxial and
bender element tests. It is noted that the proposed modulus reduction curves for
low confining stresses match well with the lower bound curves and at high confining
stresses they match well with the upper bound curves of Seed et al. [1986] modulus
reduction curves. The proposed damping curves of the sand for different confining
stresses lie between the mean and lower bound damping curves of Seed et al. [1986].
The developed expression for Gmax and for modulus reduction and damping ratio
curves of the sand can be used for all possible confining stresses to carry out seismic
site response studies in the south-east coastal region of India.
References
Aggour, S. and Zhang, J. X. [2006] “Degradation of sands due to combined sinusoidal
loading,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 132(12), 1628–1631.
ASTM D 3999-91 [2003] Standard Test Methods for the Determination of the Modulus
and Damping Properties of Soils Using the Cyclic Triaxial Apparatus (ASTM Inter-
national, West Conshohocken, United States).
Blewett, J., Blewett, I. J. and Woodward, P. K. [2000] “Phase and amplitude responses
associated with the measurements of shear wave velocity in sand by bender elements,”
Can. Geotech. J. 37(6), 1348–1358.
De Alba, P., Baldwin, K., Janoo, V., Roe, G. and Celikkol, B. [1984] “Elastic-wave veloc-
ities and liquefaction potential,” Geotech. Test. J. ASTM 7(2), 77–87.
Dobry, R., Ladd, R. S., Chang, R. M. and Powell, D. [1982] “Prediction of pore water pres-
sure build up and liquefaction of sands during earthquakes by cyclic strain method,”
NBS Building Science Series 138, Washington, DC, 1–150.
Dyvik, R. and Madshus, C. [1985] “Laboratory measurement of Gmax using bender ele-
ments,” Proc. ASCE Convention on Advances in the Art of Testing Soils Under Cyclic
Conditions, Detroit, Michigan, 186–196.
Hardin, B. O. and Richart, F. E. [1963] “Elastic wave velocities in granular soils,” Journal
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE 89(SM1), 33–65.
Hardin, B. O. and Drnevich, V. P. [1972] “Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design
equations and curves,” Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE
98(7), 667–692.
Ishibashi, I. and Zhang, X. J. [1993] “Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios
of sand and clay,” Soils Found. 33(1), 182–191.
IS 1498 [1970] Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purpose
(Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi).
1250016-18
Iwasaki, T. and Tatsuoka, F. [1978] “Effects of grain size and grading on dynamic shear
moduli of sands,” Soils Found. 17(3), 19–35.
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F. and Takagi, Y. [1978] “Shear moduli of sands under cyclic
torsional shear loading,” Soils Found. 18(1), 39–56.
Jaya, V., Dodagoudar, G. R. and Boominathan, A. [2007] “Estimation of maximum shear
modulus of sand from shear wave velocity measurements by bender elements,” Indian
Geotech. J. 37(3), 159–173.
Kokusho, T. [1980] “Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range,”
Soils Found. 20(2), 45–60.
Kramer, S. L. [1996] Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering (Pearson Education, Singa-
pore).
Lee, C. J. and Sheu, S. F. [2007] “The stiffness degradation and damping ratio evolution
of Taipei silty clay under cyclic straining,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 27(8), 730–740.
Leong, E. C., Yeo, S. H. and Rahardjo, H. [2005] “Measuring shear wave velocity using
bender elements,” Geotech. Test. J., ASTM 28(5), 1–11.
Matasovic, N. and Vucetic, M. [1993] “Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands,”

J. Geotech. Eng. 119(11), 1805–1822.
Okur, D. V. and Ansal, A. [2007] “Stiffness degradation of natural fine grained soils during
cyclic loading,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 27(9), 843–854.
Richard, R. M. and Abott, B. J. [1975] “Versatile elastic–plastic stress–strain formula,”
J. Eng. Mech.-ASCE 101(4), 511–515.
Seed, H. B., Wong, R. T., Idriss, I. M. and Tokimatsu, K. [1986] “Moduli and damping
factors for dynamic analysis of cohesionless soils,” J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE 112(11),
1016–1032.
Shirley, D. J. and Hampton, L. D. [1978] “Shear wave measurements in laboratory sedi-
ments,” Journal of Acoustic Society of America 63(2), 607–613.
Stokoe, K. H., Hwang, S. K., Darendeli, M. B. and Lee, N. J. [1995] Correlation Study
of Nonlinear Dynamic Soil Properties, Final report to Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Aiken, S. C.
Stokoe, K. H., Darendeli, M. B., Andrus, R. D. and Brown, L. T. [1999] “Dynamic soil
properties: laboratory, field and correlation studies,” Proc. Second Int. Conf. Earth-
quake Geotechnical Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 3, 811–845.
Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T. and Takagi, Y. [1978] “Hysteretic damping of sands under cyclic
loading and its relation to shear modulus,” Soils Found. 18(2), 25–40.
Thomann, T. G. and Hryciw, R. D. [1990] “Laboratory measurement of small strain shear
modulus under K0 conditions,” Geotech. Test. J., ASTM 13(2), 97–105.
Viggiani, G. and Atkinson, J. H. [1995] “Stiffness of fine-grained soil at very small strains,”
Geotechnique 45(2), 249–265.
Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. [1991] “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response,” J. Geotech.
Eng., ASCE 117(1), 89–107.
Zhang, J., Andrus, R. D. and Juang, C. H. [2005] “Normalized shear modulus and material
damping ratio relationships,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 131(4), 453–464.
Zhou, Y. and Chen, Y. [2005] “Influence of seismic cyclic loading history on small strain
shear modulus of saturated sands,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 25(5), 341–353.
1250016-19

Jaya 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Jaya 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jaya 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

February 4, 2013 16:21 WSPC/S1793-4311/238-JET 1250016

Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami

MODULUS REDUCTION AND DAMPING CURVES

G. R. DODAGOUDAR∗ and A. BOOMINATHAN†

Received 3 March 2011

V. Jaya, G. R. Dodagoudar & A. Boominathan

Fig. 1. Hysteretic stress–strain loop for cyclic loading.

V. Jaya, G. R. Dodagoudar & A. Boominathan

Fig. 2. Cyclic triaxial apparatus.

Fig. 3. Bender elements mounted on cyclic triaxial apparatus.

2.1. Sample preparation and test procedure

V. Jaya, G. R. Dodagoudar & A. Boominathan

Fig. 4. Grain size distribution of sand.

Table 1. Properties of sand.

3. Results and Discussion

element tests and Cyclic triaxial tests.

3.1. Bender element tests

V. Jaya, G. R. Dodagoudar & A. Boominathan

Effective confining stress (kPa)

Fig. 7. Relationship between Gmax /F (e) and eﬀective conﬁning stress.

3.2. Cyclic triaxial tests

V. Jaya, G. R. Dodagoudar & A. Boominathan

60 Hardin and Richart (1963)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

loading (N ). Figure 9 shows a typical stress–strain curve (hysteresis loop) obtained

G = E/2(1 + υ). (5)

V. Jaya, G. R. Dodagoudar & A. Boominathan

Effective confining stress

by considering the dependency of shear resistance on the conﬁning stress. The

4. Predictive Equations for Modulus Reduction

V. Jaya, G. R. Dodagoudar & A. Boominathan

relationship of G/Gmax and log γ for the soil specimens:

γr = γr1 (σo /pa )k , (8)

Hyperbolic Best Fit

for the evaluation of damping ratio as a function of G/Gmax :

where A, c and d are the regression constants (coeﬃcients).

V. Jaya, G. R. Dodagoudar & A. Boominathan

5 Best Fit Curve

Shear strain (%)

Fig. 15. Best ﬁt damping ratio curve with experimental data.

V. Jaya, G. R. Dodagoudar & A. Boominathan

Matasovic, N. and Vucetic, M. [1993] “Cyclic characterization of liqueﬁable sands,”

You might also like